tv Justice With Judge Jeanine FOX News September 1, 2012 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
right, they are liberal. >> "new york times" is conservative, i can't handle it. >> jon: thanks to our panel. i'm jon scott. we'll see you again next week. >> judge jeanine: some call it devine intervention. the state's attorney calls it a gift from god. stunning testimony in the drew peterson murder trial. we and we alone have the witness who provided the most powerful evidence in the trial that drew peterson said he killed his third wife kathleen savio. welcome to "justice." i'm judge jeanine pirro. tonight a justice exclusive. harry smith, kathleen savio's divorce attorney joins us to say exactly what peterson's fourth wife stacy told him
about the murder of kathleen savio. their conversation just days before stacy vanished never to be seen again. and even more shocking, harry smith was a defense witness. why on earth would the defense who doesn't have to say a word call a witness whose testimony would not only incriminate their client but whose testimony is downright damning. but let's back up. week five in the drew peterson murder trial. the evidence is in. the witnesses have testified. the experts have battled. the truth seeking process fully engaged and the jurors about to make one of the most important decisions of their lives. i told you before that is trial is not assiege for the truth. a search for the truth. juries are cheated from the
truth by the very witnesses who swear to tilt truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. judges spend their daypro texting criminals, suppressing evidence, minimizing and wittleing down testimony and judge edward burmila has not disappointed in that regard. what does the jury not know? the jury does not know of the financial motive that drew peterson had to kill kathy. the jury does not know of the evidence of the hole in the sheetrock big enough for someone to climb through to get into her house from the garage. remember, drew was an undercover narcotics cop. that is what they do. i know, i ran a narcotics task force out of my office. the jury will not know of the forensic courses that showed drew's knowledge and ability to stage a crime scene. they do not have a complete picture of statements made by kathleen before she died.
the hearsay that was allowed was fragmented, fractured and limited. so let's hear the evidence that the prosecution was not allowed to bring in. that the defense themselves served up on a silver platter. with me now from milwaukee is harry smith an attorney with the firm of smith and fuller. harry, thanks for being with us this evening. >> thank you very much for having me. >> judge jeanine: all right, harry. the question that everyone has is why would the defense call you thoughing full well what you were going to say because your testimony has been a matter of record for years. why do you think they called you? >> you know, this is a question that i think you and i both had in the trial because as i was being asked to leave for the first or second time during my testimony you looked as shocked as i was. i perceive that they had a thought in the case that followed along the lines of
monetary in investment or incentive for kathy peterson and that they were going to show that stacy and kathy were just concerned about money and would say whatever they could to get the money but that is not how it played out. >> judge jeanine: clearly, if you think about it, harry, to put a witness on the stand to say what you said and i will get to that in a minute, for the reason that you want to make the women look look like extortionists like if i come out and tell them what he told me can i get more money in the divorce, i mean do they really think that making the women look bad, one of whom is dead, the other who disappeared, helps drew peterson? >> that is an old lesson that i bet you know as well as i do as is a prosecutor. you may think when you you pick a jury that somebody who has been previously convicted of a theft is going to go easier or harder on somebody who commits a theft but the rule is this. you don't offer a witness that you don't know what they are
going to say and you can't control what they are going to say and you don't try and use a witness to make somebody who has passed away look bad because it never plays out that way. >> harry, let's get down to the facts here. now, you handled the third wife kathleen savio's divorce from drew peterson. >> correct. >> judge jeanine: but you received a phone call from stacy peterson, the fourth wife. can you tell us when you got that call? >> i think it is october. the dates sort of float in and out at this point in time. there was a call to my office to retain us days before she went missing and then i had a conversation either with her probably 24/48 hours i think before she went missing. >> judge jeanine: what was the message that she left and then what was the conversation that you had? >> the initial message was she wanted to talk about retaining me to represent her. the conversation we had went through essentially everything you heard at the trial and that was questions about possibilities for the divorce, for her leaving the state with their two young children.
questions about what she could obtain in the divorce and then obviously the biggest issue that stuck in my mind that day was her discussing what advantages could be gained in the divorce from telling the police how drew had killed kathy peterson. >> it is not what benefit she could gain if she told the police, you know, about drew but if she told the police what drew told her and how he killed kathleen. >> yeah. that was a pretty specific delineation in my mind that she said how. >> judge jeanine: what it you think, harry, when you hear from the fourth wife how that she knows how drew peterson a sergeant killed his third wife? ing at thisu thinking that the point? >> it was an eerie feeling to get the call in the first place. we did discuss early in the call my concerns for her even reaching out and talking to me
and she assured me she had got and new cell phone and he didn't know about it. i talked to her about the potential liability for holding information like that until now. this is a homicide. that is a felony to conceal a homicide or worse, some sort of liability, acome lis accomplice liability. when the phone call ended the impact was much, much greater and then when i'm calling the state police with any information regarding her disappearance it was a pretty sickly feeling. >> judge jeanine: yeah, to know that she, of course, disappeared after she told you this. what was her demeanor, harry? how did she sound to you? >> matter of fact. pretty straightforward. got the answers. as she got the answers she would ask a new question. never highly or unemotional. even when she was responding to drew as he was yelling to her from the house to get off the phone i mean they yelled back and forth but she never sounded
extremely panicked about it. just was matter of fact about it. >> did shed a mckinley mitt that she provide -- did she admit that she provided an alibi for drew peterson the night that kathleen savio was killed? >> i know from reading reports she did go to the police department and make statements but we did not discuss that on the phone. >> judge jeanine: what about her moving out of state? did she tell you why she wanted to move out of state? >> she didn't tell me why. wanted to know what the ability to do that was and it is not easy especially since that point in time she adopted drew's two children as well. you would be talking about dividing a family, two young children and i told her that was very unlikely she would be able to remove the children from the state of illinois. >> judge jeanine: you do divorces and family law, harry. the truth is that it is not unusual to hear a woman scaried for her life to sea she wants to leave the state, is it?
>> not at all. not at all. >> judge jeanine: fay that me understand that you had subpoenaed drew's financial records and pension records just weeks before kathleen died, correct? >> and there has been a lot of attention fide it. she was going to receive her marital portion of the pension pursuant to the hunt formula and there was no bones about that or child support report division of assets. there was a lot of things still on the table. >> judge jeanine: interesting that the judge is not letting the jury hear that. thank you so much for being with us this evening. i know that you are very busy. thanks for being with us from milwaukee. harry smith and thank you for what you have done in this case. >> thank you very much. good luck to you. >> judge jeanine: kathleen savio's sister who confronted drew right after kathleen's death is here with me tonight. later, don't miss my summation
of the drew peterson trial. ♪ ♪ i can do anything ♪ i can do anything today ♪ i cano anywhere ♪ i can go anywhere today ♪ la la lla la la la [ male announcer ] dow solutions help millions of people by helping to make gluten free bread that doesn't taste gluten free. together, the elements of science and the human element can solve anything solutionism. the new optimis
i want everyone to hear that i talked to her right before her death and she said that she he didn't want to leave. she didn't want to die but she knew that if something would happen it would be an accident. it would be pore ar portrayed n accident. >> judge jeanine: chilling words interest kathleen savio about's sister. will they be enough to convict drew peterson. sue testified in court earlier this month and joins me along with the savio family attorney marty glink. thanks for being with us this evening. >> thank you for having us. >> susan, my condolences to you. i can't imagine what it is like to have a sister die in the prime of her life but then for it to be the subject of so much testimony. in that sound that we he just heard you said that you you
spoke with kathleen just before she died. do you remember how many days you spoke with kathleen before she died? >> two days before she die. temprament was her temperature and demeanor? >> she was depressed and said she wasn't going to make it it. she was scared. >> she was convinced what? >> she wasn't going to make it? >> what would happen to her. >> it was going to be an accident. he was going to kill her. >> judge jeanine: he, of course, being her husband drew peterson. >> um-h'm. >> judge jeanine: did she say at one point she said then kill me, just get it over with? >> yes. >> tell me about that. >> he had gotten her into the house and holded her hostage for hours and haded a knife to her throat and said to her i can just kill you and make it look like an accident right now and she just gave up right at that time and said just do it. just do it. do what you came to do.
>> judge jeanine: and had she ever reported this to the police? >> yes. >> judge jeanine: and what was their response? >> you know, she waited a little bit of a time. i'm not sure the reason why she did. about you she did. there is a lot of fear in her. she didn't want to lose her children. >> judge jeanine: did she ever talk about the attacked that drew peterson had a mafia of his own in the police department? >> yes, he. >> judge jeanine: was that a word that she used? >> she told me be he careful when i come in to town because they could be watching me too. she felt that they were all against her. of course, you know, judge, with them coming to the house and a low temperature of reports not being done you have to think -- you have to think that what else is can you think that there was -- >> judge jeanine: that there was no protection for her. >> exactly. >> judge jeanine: marty, you are nodding your head. can you imagine the situation where she was actually reporting it to the police and
yet they did nothing? how could they be so sure and confident? >> a difficult situation judge because they definitely under the domestic violence act should have done something and done something to protect her. and certainly when she wrote the state and told them how desperate she was that he was going to kill her and get away with it and he could manipulate the system that should have triggered some response. >> judge jeanine: and susan, was there a conversation where she asked you and your sister to take care of her sons? >> yes. >> judge jeanine: when was that? >> it was actually just before she died, a few days before. she he said she didn't think that she was going to make it and to please take care of her children. >> judge jeanine: and would drew show up in the house, did she say how he could get in sense she wasn't opening the door? >> it was funny that you would ask. there would be teams wher timed be sleeping and say i think somebody is in the house and i think it is drew. she would go down and there was nobody in the house but he
always got in there some how. >> judge jeanine: the day after she died something happened about the will and telling you to tell anna like ha, ha, i found the will. >> i went over to get my sister's clothing. there was like ten garbage bags of kathleen's stuff out there and he said by the way tell your sister ha, ha, i got the will and you guys are not going to get anything. >> judge jeanine: did you ever see your sister? were you called to the home when your sister was still in the tub? >> no. >> judge jeanine: how did you find out? >> my sister called me in the middle of the night. anna called me and let me know. >> judge jeanine: and marty, tieally, you had represented the family in their lawsuit against drew and that case went no where? >> so far it is still on hold until the criminal case is over because mr. peterson still has his fifth amendment privilege but that will end next week i hope. >> judge jeanine: i don't think
there is any question but that the jury will are return a verdict this week. do you think you will get justice for kathy? >> i believe so, judge. >> judge jeanine: after all these years you have confidence? >> i have to tell you, too, i do a lot of stuff for domestic violence. i'm going out to california next month and as i'm doing these i'm giving my sister as an example. i'm not going to let her be foregotten. >> we have to trust they will hopefully get it right. >> judge jeanine: we'll see. god willing. susan, martin thank you so much for being with us this evening. and again our condolences. >> thank you. >> judge jeanine: up next, one of drew peterson's team of attorneys is here to talk about his role in the case. and stick around for my summation. this is one you won't want to miss. >> thank you so much for being with us. ♪ ♪ ♪
does anybody think she is really alive? >> do i. >> absolutely she's alive. of course. >> does anybody have any evidence she's dead? >> no. >> with you there is no sign of life. she hasn't communicated with anybody. nobody has heard from h her are. >> no sign of life? >> i haven't talked to my wife in weeks. [ laughter ] >> so what? >> for years now. >> i haven't talked to my first wife in 15 years. >> judge jeanine: that guy in the background with the glasses wasn't laughing. wasn't wearing sunglasses.
wasn't hooting and hollering about not having talked to his wife and didn't say anything about stacy, stacy who. he is daryl goldberg and he is on the defense team and joining us from chicago. thanks for being with us this evening. >> sure. >> you have a bit of a different style from your colleagues in this case? >> yeah, i heard the clip you played. obvious we have kept a little bit of a lower profile as far as the media presence is concerned. but you know there is no right answer to this. and i is certainly respect my colleagues. i don't know that -- they made amends for the statements they made and apologized profusely and it. >> judge jeanine: not so much about them. i'm not asking the you to commt on them in particular but you are a very different breed and you were clear you didn't want to testify until after all of the testimony was in and i thought that was unusual given
the defense team. let me get right to the quick here. you cross examined on the forensic testimony, the medical examiners in the case and you are very well versed i must tell you in that area. what do you think were the weaknesses in the medical examiner's testimony for the prosecution? >> well, as i think you pointed out, ralph metric and i had a task of simply dealing with the forensics for the most part. the weakness is that there is a professional disagreement amongst all of the pathologists and all of the neuropathologists. dr. case is a neuropathologist i should say but of all of pathologists who testified they have a different opinion and they have strong opinions. if you recall when you were there when mr. metrick presented dr. jensen he is a friend of dr. case but vehemently disagreed with h her and couldn't have said it much stronger. she is trying to say that you
can't fall and hit your head and lose consciousness and that is not the case. you can think of a simple slip and fall on a sidewalk there is always people who lose consciousness. >> this isn't a sidewalk. this is a bath tub. let's assume that she slips and falls. you know, if she hits the back of her head and that i assume is the injury that you say is the cause of the ultimate unconsciousness and drowning how come it is not a deep cut. it just goes through the top layer of skin. >> it goes all the way down to the wo bone basically. >> no, it doesn't. >> it is a sub gallial hemorrhage. there is no is subdural. >> and no arachnoided. >> that is a nice gash on the back of her head. let's keep it simple that is a nice gash. you don't even need a laceration to lose consciousness. the fact that you have a laceration here and you have in the bag tub.
we don't have to say forget about dizziness and medical conditions and everything else. this is a simple slip and tall break it down to its simple form. >> when you say, darrell, you say you don't even need a gash in the head. are you don't need a gash in the head but there has to be a reason for the fall. she wasn't drunk, didn't have drugs in her system or any kind of disease that would cause this injury. how do you think the jury will believe that she fell? >> you are saying a few things. she is not the picture of health. a 40-year-old woman and with the utmost respect to her i'm not -- >> judge jeanine: wait a minute i'm he 40. i'm the about picture of health. >> but you are hot takin not ta laundry list are of medications. particularly she complained of veronica moser arety george vertigo and she got dizzy and if you are not taking your medications and she is in a stressful situation it going to
come right back. putting aside the fact a bath tub with no antislip mechanism. who threading on the bottom and no bath map. >> why didn't you agree to let the tub come in in the courtroom if you want to show them there was no montreal prevent her from slipping? to why didn't you say judge bring the bath tub in when the prosecution wanted it? >> you know presiding over cases sometimes things are just a distraction. everything is in evidence. the and sty lip mechanism is is in evidence. the rough dimensions of the tub are in evidence. you don't need to stare at a tub and have that visual to do anything for the jury other than maybe mislead them or confuse them or invoke some sort of sympathy. you don't need it. it is there. >> judge jeanine: i will turn it to the panel for one second. jeff, you were in the courtroom and darrell did a great job. what did dog leashes yo you tht
weakness was in the cross-examination? >> i think he did one of the best cross-examinations of any of the lawyers in the case. he is also right that you can look at both sides of the experts. if the jury is going to talk about experts the state is going to lose because there are world reknowned experts on both sides. if they look at the other evidence they will convict. >> judge jeanine: joey? >> the experts balance each other out and neutralize each other but the problem here is it creates doubt. it you have world reknowned experts on your team and you are the defense and neutralize the points that the prosecution raised it spells trouble because what does it spell, doubt. >> judge jeanine: spells trouble and doubt. vern, lieutenant chicagolander? >> well, i wasn't in the courtroom and i will deter to the attorneys in so far as -- >> judge jeanine: you find a woman in the bath tub squashed up against the bottom does that tell you that she flamed and fell? >> this is an econpetitive cal
death investigation. the inquire arery is hope to and could be homicide, suicide, accident or natural causes. if it as staged crime scene which i believe this to be it will be he purposely vague. this was a staged crime scene by someone who had experience in the police department who could manipulate the first responders. >> great point. >> judge jeanine: we will come back for that. i want to thank darrell goldberg tore joining us as well as the individuals here joey jackson and vern and jeff gold that are going to continue to be with us after the break. stay with us.
possibility locks could fail. a half million homes remain without power, ream nants of isaac bringing much-needed rain to drought stricken areas farther north in the mississippi valley. and in south florida saturday, 20 pilot whales beached themselves for unknown reasons. most didn't survive despite efforts. five of the whales, two calfs and three juf nilz were take dwron a university facility for rehabilitation. the rest died of natural causes or had to be euthanized. now, back to justice with judge janine. headlines when you want them, go to our website, fox news .com. they haven't even proven the unreasonable doubt that there was a homicide. as a matter of fact, when you really look at the medical evidence it all points to accident. not one tore re forensic pathot
for the prosecution even had a theory about what happened in kathy savio's bathroom let alone an opinion. >> judge jeanine: i have to say something in response to that. i was in the courtroom and they weren't allowed to have a theory but that is for later in the show. did kathleen died as a result of the fall or the victim of a homicide? with me now is the doctor are who performed the second and most important autopsy on kathleen, dr. larry blume who is a triple board certified forensic pathologist. doctor, thank you for being with us this evening. >> thank you. >> judge jeanine: i was in the courtroom. very impressed with your testimony and your credentials. we don't have time to get into them. how did you decide this was a homicide and not an accident? >> the one of the first things i looked at was what you referred to in the last segment, the three red flags going up. no disease. no drink or alcohol. no drugs in her system proven by toxicology.
those three things alone make this death of a 40-year-old unwitnessed death, no clothes, in the tub, very suspicious right from the get-go. >> judge jeanine: and doctor, did you have an opportunity to actually look at her medical records to see whether or not there was any condition that would have atexted her ability -- affected her ability to stand? >> yes, i looked through several doctors' records going back several years. there was nothing in there that would qualify as a disease which put a person at more risk for drowning in their own bath tub. >> judge jeanine: and let's throw up on the screen, guys, the picture of kathleen in the bath tub, please. doctor, i'm going ask you to look at this picture. that is kathleen in the bath tub. certain areas that we blocked out. she is head down and away from the faucet. what does that picture tell you? >> number one, we eliminated
any what i call high fall, high contact fall with the items on the shelves behind her and down more at tub level. all of those items were upright. there was a pedestal soap dish. a flat soap dish. a child's shampoo bottle. all those were upright. we eliminated any falls going back that way which meant to me if she did hit her head she had to hit it very low on the tub and as you recall the laceration was to the back of the head and th parietal occipital. >> nobody knows parietal occipital. was it deep or hot? >> it was not a complete lassation. my point is when she hit the back of her head to have an injury at that location her shoulders would have had to be square with the back of the tub.
it is 22 inches wide. she was face down. in fact, she had her left eye bro in contact with the floor of the tub. she was face down and there was no physical way she could have flipped over or bounced over. >> would have to be a flying walenza to do that. i want you to look at the abrasions and contusions that you identified on the front of the body. look at the clavicle. there was deep bruising around under the clavicle with the collarbone? in there were what i would describe as chest muscle hemorrhages, bilateral meaning on both sides. the right-side being greater than the left and that is important because she was as you know a little bit more to her left side so if it was some sort of artifact which has been suggested this would virtually eliminatethy post mortem settling of blood because it was bleeding more on the side that was up than down.
>> judge jeanine: let me ask you this, doctor. talk about the blood on the bottom of the tub. if the tub were full and she actually drown in that tub wouldn't that blood be dissipated or diluted by and not so blood red? >> that's correct. and we really don't even have to look at that. on the side of her face going down across her left temple going down to the eyebrow that was on the floor of the tub she had a dried pattern, a gravity pattern of blood flow down there. >> judge jeanine: what does it tell you? >> it is impossible to get that if you are sub merged in water. impossible. >> judge jeanine: final question. the injuries on her left side were abrasions and most of the injuries in the front were contusions. tell us the significance of that? >> well, we really didn't as mentioned previously we really didn't get a chance to go into our is a narrow o is a scenarit happened. but the most important injury on her back was a pattern abrasion. as we know the inside of that
tub there was no surface abrasion areas. it was smooth, wet, slippery, and impossible again to form a pattern abrasion on the buttocks from a tall on it. >> judge jeanine: so she couldn't get the abrasions from inside the tub. >> she could not. >> judge jeanine: are they consistent with gout o grout oe tile outside of the tub. >> the linearity would be from her being placed on there prior to being placed and positioned in the tub, yes. >> judge jeanine: and tial question, the feet being down with the toes against the side of the tub, what does that tell you? >> that was another puzzler when i first looked at this because if you fall in a tub full it of water are there is the legs and the feet have some natural buoyancy in that water. as you know, the tub leaked water very slowly so those would gradually come down. her feet were jammed up against particularly the left one as israeli was jammed up against the side of the tub to a 90-degree angle.
>> judge jeanine: absolutely. >> how do you get into a pressure wea situation like tht from floating down i don't know. >> judge jeanine: i very much appreciate your input on this and your testimony in this trial. i thought it was very clear. now, to the panel. joey, vern and jeff are with us. joey, you are nodding when the doctor was testifying. is there anything that struck you about her being in the tub that suggested to you you that it was a homicide or an accident? >> you know what, judge, here is my issue, though, and doctor are you could perhaps clarify this for me. the defense was talking about how some of the abrasions were just artifacts of decomposition. >> judge jeanine: an artifact means stuff that happens after you die, blood that pools here or there and not part of the injury. is that good, doctor, kind of? >> that's correct. >> i think the defense was exploiting that point and saying look the abrasions were the artifacts are decomposition as opposed to part of the
actual injury. >> judge jeanine: not part of the injury. >> and the second thing when the defense was talking about you mentioned dr. blum about the fall and how she was positioned and the defense was saying this is pure coincidence and also i thought rebutted dr. case's testimony when they talked about how the head was a cut. the cut would have been horizontal as opposed to vertical. that was something that i was looking for the state perhapses to rebut. >> judge jeanine: jeff, you were in the courtroom? what struck you, this homicide, accident, what do you think? >> i personally think it was a homicide and not an accident. two of the things we talked about was the buttocks and this blood. when you see a young lady in the tub with the blood running down you say how could that have had water and there has been nothing in the case about that. i think judge the way we are talking about the case about the medicine and about the autopsy is great except for if the over focuses on it they are wrong.
if it snowed last night you can say i woke up and looked at the snow and say that is direct evidence. went to bed no snow on the ground and woke up in the morning and snow on the ground. the state is making circumstancial case with admissions from the defendant. admissions by the fourth wife and admissions with what happened in her statements from the dead wife. >> judge jeanine: but in terms of the bath tub, vern, you were talking about equivocal death. >> talking about an experienced police oftier is at the scene. has the body discovered by the neighbor and when the first responders come there he is in a person to influence them. here is the problem. with a staged crime scene even an experienced homicide investigator can be fooled by the presentation. in homicide we look for the presentation and victimology. you you have an investigator who is over his head. some wizard in the illinois
state police decided to promote people from the street without qualification and then you have a crime scene technician who is a wise guy who is not supposed to be making any cause or manner interpretation. >> judge jeanine: shame on him. >> the other issue is this. drew peterson is present during this and feeding them the information to make it look like an accident as opposed to a homicide. there is red flags here. >> judge, if they focus on -- >> judge jeanine: let vern finish. red flag. ex-husband, wife in legal contention. red flag number two. 18 domestic violence calls. red flag number three. staged crime scene. it is right over their head. >> judge jeanine: and not only that he is present when the fourth wife is interviewed to provide him an alibi. that is what they call in chicago professional >> the only thing i wanted to say is vern if the jury focuses on what you focus on and i think if the prosecution makes
them focus on that, an experienced officer who could manipulate a crime scene and make a death seem like an accident now the prosecution has a reasonable argument. >> i agree. >> judge jeanine: last words before you go to break. what do you think is going to happen? >> up >> i don't know. >> a good answer. >> very he well stated, doctor. >> judge jeanine: you know what, doctor? none of us know. next, drew peterson's love letters that he wrote from jail. you will not believe what he has to say. then my summation on the whole drew peterson trill. stay with us.
i trust nature made because their products are scientifically formulated. their fish oil contains the right dose of critical omega3's. the amount recommended by several leading health organizations. nature made,the number one pharmacist recommended fish oil brand. learn more at naturemade.com my feet and exactly where i needed more support. i had tired, achy feet. until i got my number. my dr. scholl's custom fit orthotics number. now i'm a believer. you'll be a believer, too. learn where to find your number at drscholls.com.
fifth fiancee. vern is back with us. he is the author of practical homicide which is the bible for most homicide detectives now in its fourth edition as well as sexual homicide. robi rud ludewig who wrote thek about death do us part about marital homicide. the two of you meet and say hello. >> a match made in heaven, right? >> judge jeanine: get this one. a letter in drew peterson's own hand writing. when things are down for me i just think of your smile and holding you in the dark, feeling your body against mine, thinking of us holding each other makes me feel better. i hope you are not a smoker. what? how does he know what she feels like and how you does he know her smile and doesn't know if she smokes? "i hate the taste of tobacco."
what is going on here? yes. >> thinks he is a romantic guy and is constantly looking for the perfect romance. with drew, he gets very disappointed. he is a about murderous romantic. he has high expectations and when you look at these letters. >> judge jeanine: doesn't he get it, maybe it's him? >> i don't think so. as you can see, he says in his letters don't disappoint me. i have been terribly let down and disappointed that is his experience. other people let him down and he brings his a game and then gets rid of the women when they disappoint him. >> judge jeanine: what makes him any different from any other serial killer who receives letters from gals. this guy is the poster boy for domestic violence. you were the chair on the governor's commission. i served under your chair and we saw folks leak this and sadly domestic violence homicides are the only homicides we can prevent but the problems is these sharks
move around in se society and manipulate people's filings. >> they are very charming and let's face it these type of men at the beginning because they put women on a pedestal and know how to talk to them and focus on them. and they only target certain people who are vulnerable and who are needy. >> who are needy, yes. >> judge jeanine: you know what i love. in one of the letters he says hi sweet tee. what is the status of your driver's license. if you don't have a driver's license what would it take to get one? do you have any type of debt and do you like sex? what are your needs? do you have any stds. >> he is hot s not so desperat. >> wants to know debt and what she smokes. >> you don't think he is getting something out of the letters and response. >> he is getting more responses from women than a lot of men that are out there in bars.
>> judge jeanine: and don't have a criminal record. >> he has the ability of not only age but uses his police status which is a to us which whole different level. they are dangerous. they he operate with anonymity. >> thank dr. robi ludewig and learn for being with us this evening. right after the break my summation of what happened to
>> judge jeanine: she was murdered by someone who said he loved her. by a police sergeant sworn to protect her. her story told to us from the grave. kathleen savio mother of two young boys was in the prime of her life when one man and one man alone decided that she should die. before her death she lived in constant fear. terrorized by the man who literally drilled a hole through the wall of her home to get in. like so many she pounded on the doors of justice. cried for help. got a restraining order. did everything she was supposed to. but you there was no protection from the man who told her he would kill her and make it look like an accident. she knew the end was coming.
she installed deadbolts. arranged her affairs. even asked her sisters to raise her sons. she knew she couldn't keep him out. yes, this is no physical evidence, no dna, no fingerprints, no eyewitness. it would be the perfect crime. except the fourth wife vanishes. but circumstancial evidence is even stronger than eyewitness. imagine you are on a desert island and you think there is someone else there because in the full moonlight you see with your very own eyes a camp fire and hands over the fire but you don't approach. the next morning you see what you thought was a fire. it was a piece of metal that reflected the moonlight. what you thought were hands nothing more than the branch of a tree. what you think you saw was really nothing more than an illusion. and why is there no evidence? there is no evidence because a
fellow police officer either inept, incompetent or corrupt made a decision within minutes to call it an accident and call it a day. he directed that no evidence be collected. and peterson was given the professional courtesy of being present while his fourth wife tells police he was with her on the night in question. but it was the second autopsy that identified the 13 fresh contusions and abrasions. the deep bruising under the collarbone. severe bruising under the diia tram itself consistent with a bear hug. the lass ration to the head was only skin deep and would never cause a healthy woman with who drugs, no alcohol and who disease to lose consciousness and drown. it is not one fact but many facts taken together as a connected whole which lead us to such convincing proof of guilt that we are unable to escape it. fact, two months before she
died drew peterson wearing his weapon takes a convict for a ride in his police car, offering $25,000 to kill his third wife. he only wants to know when it is going to happen so he can create an alibi. fact, four months before she dies, kathleen tells a tenant that her husband dressed in black s.w.a.t. uniform snuck into her home and held a knife to her throat and told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident. fact, three months before her death again sneaks into her home, chokes her, leaving physical marks and asks her why she doesn't just die. he tells her he will get the kids and all of the money. six months befor. fact, drew's fourth wife tells her preacher that she goes to bed with him the night before kathleen is found dead and she wakes up andrew i up as
gone. not answering his cell. at dawn finds him in the laundry room dressed in black s.w.a.t. washing another woman's clothing. he grills her, telling her that she will provide his alibi. the fourth wife even tells a divorce lawyer that drew tellser her killed kathleen and petersen's is pension records are subpoenaed by the lawyer days before she died. nothing in chon. a reverend. a police lieutenant. a convict. a teacher. a sister. they are not all lying. they don't even know each other. this is not a conspiracy. to what really happened? peterson picks up his kids for visitation. he knows kathleen is alone for the weekend. he leaves home in the middle of the night after his fourth wife falls asleep. he enters kathleen's home using
either her son's missing key or the preprogrammed garage door opener that kathleen wrote about to the state's attorney. dressed in black, he surprises kathleen with a choke or a stranglehold just like he did in the front yard when arrested her in front of her own kids. he is highly trained in submission holds and the martial arts. once she is down he forces her head into the toilet, explaining the deep symmetrical bruising under her collarbone. he then drags her on her left side from the toilet to the tub, explaining the abrasions on the left side of her body. and the one linear abrasion literally mimics grout on the floor. she is already dead. throws her in the tub and hits her on the head and forces her legs down, her feet pressed against the side of the tub. he forgets to put the towel there or replace the bath mat.
his hands too big to open the small clasp on the necklace around her neck. he knows from his police training his dna is on her clothing so takes them to launder them and when he returns the next day with the kids he calls a lock smith and neighbor before he enters the house. now, he has his alibi. he doesn't call fellow police officers. civilians are better in a situation like this. when a neighbor screams in a dark house where there might be an intruder he doesn't run with his gun drawn as all police are trained to do. he stays at the front door and when does approach her body he starts cleaning up the blood, allegedly to keep the children from seeing it but really to explain why his dna might be present and after a neighbor asks why there is no towel we she is taking a bath one miraculously appears. the evidence is there. circumstancial and strong. motive. means.
opportunity. even truth connected leads us to the whole truth. kathleen savio has spoken to us from her grave. her statements is repeatedly voiced by the witnesses is who wore are to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. her voice is everywhere. it is clear, precise and on target. it is deafening. can't you hear her? thanks joining us. e-mail us your comments. "justice" @ thuses .com. captioned by closed captioning services, inc. ari'm fine.y, babe? ♪